Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?  (Read 9894 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline olsen

Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #14 from previous page: September 27, 2010, 08:52:51 AM »
Quote from: Ratte;581465
40.70 exists for A1200/3000/4000D&T.
The difference is only the SCSI.DEVICE.
When they started to chip the 3.1 ROMs they got feedback about deadlooks from HDDs.
The lastminute change .. they shiped ROMs with a older scsi.device which seems to be more stable.
V40.68 ....


Exactly. The same sort of problems also existed for the A600/A500/A2000 ROM version. The scsi.device V40 crashed during the interrupt handler initialization, which is why the A600HD had scsi.device V39 in ROM.

As far as I know the final ROM changes to V40, through 40.70, all came about because the unified SCSI driver required further testing, but as Commodore was approaching its final days, time and resources were getting scarce.

It may have been a risky to build this unified SCSI driver in the first place. Because of the range of hardware it supported (A590/A2091/CDTV SCSI, A3000 SCSI, A600/A4000/A1200/CD32 IDE, A4000T/A4091 SCSI), the internal dispatcher code had to work very differently, too. The SCSI variant required a handler Task and an interrupt handler, and the IDE variant needed just an interrupt handler, but a different one from the SCSI variant.

What broke the V40 scsi.device for the A600/A500/A2000 was that the driver initialization code passed an uninitialized register, which would have contained a Task pointer in the SCSI variant, to the respective setup code. Out of curiousity, I tracked down and fixed this bug, and the resulting driver worked fine.
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2010, 09:18:55 AM »
Quote from: olsen;581472
What broke the V40 scsi.device for the A600/A500/A2000 was that the driver initialization code passed an uninitialized register, which would have contained a Task pointer in the SCSI variant, to the respective setup code.
Ouch.

Still, not as bad as breaking the whole AUTOCONFIG(TM) in KS 1.2 and later selling KS 1.3 separately as an upgrade to allow booting off HDD. This problem was trivial to fix as well (make sure that correct a6 is used for AllocMem call), and it made KS 1.2 support AUTOCONFIG(TM) just fine.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 09:22:09 AM by Piru »
 

Offline alexh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Posts: 3644
    • Show only replies by alexh
    • http://thalion.atari.org
Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2010, 02:15:05 PM »
My A3000 had KS1.4 and the A3000 version of 3.1 v40.70 (plus the special KS1.4 extension) on a file in DEVS:

You sure these are physical chips you've got?
 

Offline olsen

Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2010, 03:15:21 PM »
Quote from: Piru;581475
Ouch.

Still, not as bad as breaking the whole AUTOCONFIG(TM) in KS 1.2 and later selling KS 1.3 separately as an upgrade to allow booting off HDD. This problem was trivial to fix as well (make sure that correct a6 is used for AllocMem call), and it made KS 1.2 support AUTOCONFIG(TM) just fine.

If I remember correctly, autoconfig worked fine as long as your PIC didn't use a ROM. Memory expansions and I/O cards such as the A2065 worked under Kickstart 1.2, and even auto-booting hard disk as long as you set a jumper to disable the ROM.

Back in the late 1980'ies I worked on a hard disk driver for an A590-like expansion. I managed to barely get auto-booting to work through one major ugly hack (thank god the original FFS was basically one position-independent section of code). But no matter what, you couldn't attach the hardware to an A500 with Kickstart 1.2 installed unless you flipped a switch at the back of the device which disabled the ROM. If you left the ROM enabled, the A500 would crash early during system startup.

I think Ralph Babel first described the culprit in his English version of the Amiga Guru Book: the Kickstart 1.2 ROM decoding code had a LINKEXE macro invocation in place of the correct CALLSYS. That bug took more than a year to find & fix, and it was part of the last set of changes made to expansion.library V33 in May 1986.
 

Offline desantiiTopic starter

  • Amiga Addict!
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 385
    • Show only replies by desantii
Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2010, 10:42:15 PM »
Yes, physical chip. Has a sticker that says "Pilot Production Version"

 
Quote from: alexh;581502
My A3000 had KS1.4 and the A3000 version of 3.1 v40.70 (plus the special KS1.4 extension) on a file in DEVS:
 
You sure these are physical chips you've got?
Amiga 1200/030 50mhz, 64mb ram

Amiga 2000, 030 25mhz, 7mb ram, A2320,  SCSI2CD
 
Amiga 3000/030 25mhz, CF SCSI card

Amiga 4000/ 040 33mhz 274mb ram
 

Offline rxxic

Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2024, 12:17:25 PM »
Sorry to revive this old thread but the information fits well in here.

Out of curiosity I would like to put together a newer ROM for my CD32.
I'd like to use the newest modules from 3.2.2.1.

While researching a little bit, I noticed that GATEWAY updated the ROM for the CD32 with a newer cdui (40.21), cdstrap (40.21), scsidisk (40.20) against the older versions of the r40.68 ROM (respectively 40.20, 40.20 and 40.12). (source http://capitoline.twocatsblack.com/index.php/known-roms/)

I just purchased the newest AmigaForever package and also AmigaOS3.2  (I can show a proof of purchase if desired) but I can't find r40.70 for the CD32.
I also searched the web and my search was unsuccessfull.

The interesting bits are cdstrap and cdui.

Anyone knows where to get r40.70 for the CD32?
Or does someone know what was updated in the modules? (I suppose the scsi.device is not so relevant as the r47 is newer anyway)

Thanks!

edit: correction, it wasn't Gateway but still Commodore who updated to the r40.70
« Last Edit: January 14, 2024, 12:28:54 PM by rxxic »
 

Offline F0LLETT

  • Amigakit / A-EON Support
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 579
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Gender: Male
    • Show only replies by F0LLETT
    • Ultimate Amiga
Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2024, 09:57:41 AM »
Sorry to revive this old thread but the information fits well in here.

Out of curiosity I would like to put together a newer ROM for my CD32.
I'd like to use the newest modules from 3.2.2.1.

While researching a little bit, I noticed that GATEWAY updated the ROM for the CD32 with a newer cdui (40.21), cdstrap (40.21), scsidisk (40.20) against the older versions of the r40.68 ROM (respectively 40.20, 40.20 and 40.12). (source http://capitoline.twocatsblack.com/index.php/known-roms/)

I just purchased the newest AmigaForever package and also AmigaOS3.2  (I can show a proof of purchase if desired) but I can't find r40.70 for the CD32.
I also searched the web and my search was unsuccessfull.

The interesting bits are cdstrap and cdui.

Anyone knows where to get r40.70 for the CD32?
Or does someone know what was updated in the modules? (I suppose the scsi.device is not so relevant as the r47 is newer anyway)

Thanks!

edit: correction, it wasn't Gateway but still Commodore who updated to the r40.70

Just do as I did install, OS3.2 then use loadmodule to load them all into ram, reboot and its updated.
I have a 32GB SSD on mine, it wont see last partition until I load all the updated modules on first boot.

Also, wasn't 40.70 for A4000T?
Quote from: Hungry Horace
Resolute and Industrious Grand ruler of the yellow people and the Ultimate Amiga Empire
Ultimate Amiga Network (Home of SONY PSP Amiga Emulator and AMOS Factory)

Quote from:  He who shall not be named
"Chris is that you!!!"
My all time favorite quote.
 

Offline Jope

Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2024, 01:19:35 PM »
Also, wasn't 40.70 for A4000T?

40.70 was built for every configuration, but all the others apart from A4000T were rolled back to previous builds due to various scsi.device incompatibilities.
 

Offline Mikeywikey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2023
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: wales
    • Show only replies by Mikeywikey
    • Capitoline
Re: 3.1 Kickstart 40.70 vs 40.68?
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2024, 04:14:47 PM »
Not only was a 40.70 built for the CD32, CD32 (with dev board), there was also one built for the CD1200 too, 40.71 is quite a rare beast, it’s basically 40.70 built with a new compiler toolchain by Gateway, I think there’s some fixes, but basically just a recompile, but doesn’t include CD32.

Building a 2Mb CD32 ROM is easy (which is what you’ll need for Hyperion 47.111), but unfortunately the CD32 can’t use a 2Mb ROM without hardware mods.
Kickstart Hacker, known for tinkering.